Firstly, it presumes too much about ‘the north’ and ‘the south’. Secondly, the idea that a small number of London-based schools and Multi Academy Trusts have a ‘stranglehold on the best teaching talent’ is simply odd. Finally, the suggestion that ‘what’s required is for the best MATs to make their way up north, and to take their best teachers (and their ever-successful recruitment drives) with them’ ignores a huge amount of what we know about schools and schooling across the UK.

So, firstly. ‘The north’ is a commonly agreed geographical area. It exists, and to talk of the north makes sense. It is an area which most British people would recognise; it would be a contrarian who would argue that modern day north did not include most of the area south of Scotland and north of a (very rough) line between the Humber and the Mersey estuaries. ‘The south’, in the meaning used in this piece, doesn’t exist. It’s used here as shorthand for ‘London and the South East’, and clearly doesn’t include areas such as the South West and East Anglia, which are most certainly not in the north*.

What’s more ‘London and the South East’ is so fundamentally different to the rest of the country, in so many different ways, that it almost impossible to sum up briefly. Those who go to school in the capital are systematically different to those who go to school in the rest of the country, never mind the north, so the comparison is meaningless. GCSE results have improved across the entire country (see the graph below, adapted from the graph on page 12 of this 2014 report for an overview). Whilst inner London has seen the biggest improvement in recent years (outer London has always been one of the best areas for GCSE results), it started a) at a lower level, b) the spread between areas has reduced considerably, and c) the improvements in Inner London secondary schools have been seen across the board, whatever their organisational structure.

As Professor Simon Burgess, author of “Understanding the success of London’s schools” concludes, “ethnic minority pupils have greater ambition, aspiration, and work harder in school.” As he argues, “London has more of these pupils and so has a higher average GCSE score than the rest of the country.” Whilst we can’t know for certain what caused inner London to improve as it did, this seems the most likely explanation given what we know about the wider picture.

Secondly, ‘hugely successful Multi-Academy Trusts and pioneering Free Schools’ seems to mean – at a guess - Harris Federation, ARK Schools, Michaela Community School and West London Free School, and maybe a few more. In total, this is around 30 or so secondary schools, give or take. The recent EPI report on school performance in Multi-Academy Trusts and Local Authorities lists 6 MATs in the top 20 LAs/MATs at KS4, representing just 33 schools, whereas LA schools account for 112 schools in the top 20 LA/MATs (most are in London, naturally, for the reasons described above). Harris Federation don’t even feature in the KS 4 top 20, coming in at 24th out of 174 different multi-school groups.

The idea that this small number of schools, less than 40 of 4,000 secondary schools countrywide, about 0.01 of the total, almost exclusively based in one of the most expensive, most unaffordable places in which to work in the entire country, which is systematically different to the world 100 miles from Piccadilly Circus, has a ‘stranglehold on the best teaching talent’ is simply misguided at best, and insulting at worst.

The suggestion that the north needs to be saved by London–focused MATs in shining armour is patronising codswallop. As the author admits, primaries across the country are doing a good job, according to Ofsted.** Why on earth anyone would think that a future in which ‘swathes of good and outstanding primaries in the north will need to be swooped up’ and that ‘the north (is) a ripe fruit waiting to be picked‘ is anything other than a massively disruptive disaster waiting to happen to perfectly well-run schools is anyone’s guess. And I’d imagine that quite a few people - many of the Head’s Roundtable for a start - might want to argue with the unsupported and quite frankly risible statement that, ‘If MATs make their way north, it might also help to end the deafening silence from northern schools and teachers in policy discussions.’ Certain policy discussion might only involve Teach Firsters, Politicians and Civil Servants speaking broad RP, but there many which don’t, and reasons why many which do speak RP and know little outside the capital.

If this is the best that the ‘best and the brightest Teach First (has) to offer’ can suggest, then heaven help us all. Who knows, there may be good reasons for schools to work together in a Multi-Academy Trust structure - feel free to chip in in the comments if you do - but none are forthcoming here. This looks like a suggestion for a power grab and little else. If you are based in London and you want to work in the north, you have nothing to lose but your metropolitan arrogance. But take care before you presume you know better than those outside the capital, and be careful who you might offend if you patronise the 15 million people who live and work in the north.

*To his credit, Jonathan Booth, the author of the School’s Week article acknowledged this point when I asked him about it:

@Jack_Marwood@SchoolsWeek ofc when I say south I really mean Ldn and SE. SW and East have their own unique probs, but that's semantics!

**The uncomfortably truth is probably that this is because, in effect, Ofsted judge schools on two subjects in Year 6, and primary schools had worked out how to ensure that their children get good grades in the pre-2016 SATs; nevertheless, 85% of primary schools are considered to be Good or better, and most children in primaries make good progress in the core subjects on which they are tested at 11.

Well said. I don't mean this as an attack on individuals, who clearly care and want the best for children, but I am slightly fed up of the slightly naive Teach First / WLF / Michaela self promotion.
You've opened schools at great expense in the highest funded area of the country, where you can recruit pupils and staff who fit in with your "ethos" and can remove anyone who doesn't. You are surrounded by other high achieving secondary schools and great primary schools.
When one of these groups goes into a low funded, low achieving area, where there is only one school that serves the needs of every pupil then I'll take notice of their methods.
However I suspect they'll find the model isn't scaleable. Just as the charter operators in the US have found when they moved from New York into rural areas and found the "no excuses" model doesn't work when they can't just get rid of pupils or teachers.
Open up schools in Knowsley, coastal Lincolnshire or rural Cornwall and achieve similar success and then I'll believe you have found the holy grail of pedagogy. Until then I'll believe you are highly motivated, well meaning people who work in a very well funded area and effectively select the children you educate.

Reply

Jack Marwood

7/10/2016 04:57:49 pm

Thanks Tim,

Well said. It's a pity anyone who is clearly sincere in their desire to improve education feels the need to denigrate others in their quest to do so, whilst often ignoring massive contextual differences which make some schools and areas so very different to others.

Reply

Mark Watson

7/10/2016 02:42:49 pm

The only "patronising codswallop" as I see it is from some chippy Guardian journalist having a go at a primary school teacher who dared to voice an opinion that wasn't in line with Guardian diktat.

I've never met Jonathan Booth (the author of the article under discussion) and have no idea where he's coming from, but I read his article and thought it came from a primary school teacher who just wanted better opportunities for his children and all other children in "the North".

How condescending to try and take him to task because of his use of the terms North and South. How brilliant you are for quoting from eminent academies such as Professor Simon Burgess. Your opinion therefore counts for so much more.

By the way, I didn't actually agree with what Jonathan Booth was saying. I do think the North needs good MATs but I think they should be starting and growing their own rather than 'the London MATs' moving in - as can be seen in my comments on the Schools Week thread.

However I didn't resort to calling his article "deeply troubling" and "risible". I felt that would have been unnecessary, rude and snarky.

Reply

Jack Marwood

7/10/2016 04:44:11 pm

Hi Mark, and thanks for taking the time to comment. To clear up a few things: I’m not a Guardian journalist, although I have written opinion pieces for the Guardian and others. I’m a primary school teacher and I toe no Guardian line.

I am sorry that you found my comments ‘unnecessary, rude and snarky.’ We’ve established that you didn’t like my tone, and that you thought my quoting respected academics was somehow unjustified. I’m amazed that you think that I have ‘had a go’ at a fellow primary school teacher. I wrote a measured response to the opinion he put forward and took care not to insult Jonathan in the way you have insulted me.

If you want to argue with my opinion, I’ll happily respond.

Reply

Mark Watson

7/10/2016 05:25:33 pm

Did you or did you not refer to one of his statements as being "unsupported and quite frankly risible" ?

Maybe you genuinely think that's not rude. I'd suggest not many people would agree with you.

And I have no problem with you referring to 'respected academics', in fact it's something I wish people would do more of on the Schools Week's threads rather than just rehash political ideologies.

What I objected to was that someone who clearly understands the issues seemed to be trying to dismiss the author (such as by the whole North/South discussion) without actually getting into the meat of the matter he raised which is actually far more important.

And yes, I've probably gone a bit ranty too. Apologies, it's a Friday and I'm very pushed for time! I've got to sign off now to get home but I'd really like to engage more next week on the important aspects ... !

Jack Marwood

7/10/2016 08:40:25 pm

Thanks Mark,

I'm fairly sure that when I dismiss an opinion by saying it is 'unsupported and quite frankly risible', most people will simply see that as robust debate. I'm attacking the opinion, not the person, and I laughter out loud when I read Jonathan's suggestion that there is a 'deafening silence' from northern voices in policy debates. My comment is certainly no more rude than JB's initial claim.

I look forward to hearing what you think about the main view Jonathan put across in his piece, and my response to it, without making it about the people arguing for their point of view.

Have a nice weekend,

Jack

Reply

Mark Watson

10/10/2016 10:30:48 am

OK, moving on to the meat of the issue ...
I am rather worried that we may be in agreement on a few things (troubling I know!)
As I said in my original response to JB's article, I fundamentally disagreed with his call for Southern MATs to "make their way up north" or as you put it "London–focused MATs in shining armour " saving the north. One of the positive aspects of MATs as I see it is to be able to concentrate their focus, unlike an LA which sometimes has to (through no fault of its own) operate a mix of high performing and low performing schools, urban and rural, inner-city and coastal etc. Having a London-based MAT trying to run schools in North Lancashire, based on systems and processes designed for London schools, would seem to be entirely inappropriate.
Where we probably disagree is that I think what we need are 'proper' Northern MATs. High performing MATs that are either formed by groups of local schools (my favoured model) or a northern-equivalent Harris Federation (if there are no carpet magnates in Manchester there must be equivalents). If we are to have a 'Northern Powerhouse' in education it must be a genuine northern entity.
Incidentally I think all of the above applies in other ways - for example to schools located in the extreme South-West and the East Midlands, to coastal schools etc.. All of them have different needs, make-ups and characters.

Reply

Jack Marwood

10/10/2016 07:39:07 pm

Hi Mark,

And thanks for your comments, which add to the discussion really well. I’m sure we do probably agree more than disagree, which is surely a good thing…

So, as to your substantive point, there is an observation which I need to make to start, which is this: Local Authorities don’t ‘operate’ schools in the way which you suggest. They haven’t for 25 years, when ‘Local Management of Schools’ was introduced by the DfE and schools became responsible for their own budgets, management and results. Even before LMS came it, LAs didn’t really ‘operate’ schools, which have always had a fair degree of independence when it comes to day-to-day management.

What’s more, whilst the Multi-Academy Trust structure does allow MATs to ‘operate’ schools, in practice most schools in MATs have a fair bit of autonomy - this is largely the case for those ‘defensive MATs’ which consist of three or fewer schools (the vast majority at the moment, 933 of 973 according to http://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/school-performance-in-multi-academy-trusts.pdf). It’s only the relatively small number of larger MATs - 40 or so - which have used the MAT model to impose operating structures on their schools. As a policy, it hasn’t really done what you’d like to see as yet, and may never do it to any great extent.

For the main point I, much like you, would much prefer to see genuine northern entities supporting education in the north and elsewhere.

Jack

Reply

Mark Watson

11/10/2016 10:18:08 am

Jack

If we agree on some points I'm very happy!

To clear up one thing, when I said "operate" I meant support. One of the things that I get slightly testy about is when people argue that LA community schools have such great control over their own schools and the LA doesn't run them. If that is the case then (a) why do some many schools want to get away from their LA, and (b) why would it make any difference to the school or the LA if they converted and became an academy?

I've come across many schools whose primary incentive for converting to an academy was to be able to get away from their LA. This is not something I would suggest is a good thing, and if this was the only reason they were wanting to convert I do not think it would be a good idea at all. Nevertheless, it is indicative of how some schools feel constricted and dictated to by their LA. (Just to be clear, I've also come across many schools who had a wonderful relationship with their LA - some of these still converted to academies but maintained close links with their LA post conversion).

Now the more interesting discussion about MATs. The whole point about MATs, as I see it, is that there is absolutely no standard model for how a MAT can operate. Some MATs are controlling and very centralised - they insist on their schools using the same name format, the same uniforms, policies etc. As an example I usually refer to Oasis Community Learning and their 45 academies which are all called "Oasis Academy .........".

Alternatively, other MATs have a centralised 'back-office' function which allows them to give highly efficient support to their academies - everything from finance, HR, estates etc. The goal is to take everything that is 'non-educational' away from the schools so that they can concentrate 100% on providing the best education possible. These MATs welcome the diversity of individual schools and have no interest in creating clones.

The point is that there is room for both the above models, and the myriad of other types out there. Where you have a school which has had a long history of dire performance and a terrible local reputation, it might be an attractive option to have an absolute break from the past, give the school a new name and a new uniform etc. On the other hand, why would you change anything in a successful school which is going to join a MAT and share its best practice with every other school in the chain?

Historically, the larger MATs (which have the ability to take advantage of their size to provide the real benefits that the model allows) have been set up and run by external bodies - whether this be an individual (e.g the Harris Federation), an education charity (e.g. ARK Schools) or a religious body (e.g. the multitude of Diocese of ........... Academies Trusts). The next stage of the process will be the growth of the large schools-based MATs - REACH being one of the examples. (Again, for the avoidance of doubt I'm not in any way holding REACH up as the perfect example). However it will be the growth of these schools-based MATs which will change the narrative as it will be the educators driving things forward.

The key point as I see it is that every school looking to join a MAT should (a) have the ability to choose which MAT it wants to join, and (b) as a result carry out sufficient research and due diligence to make sure it chooses the best one for it. The only caveat to this is that it needs someone (the RSCs?) to make sure MATs aren't over-expanding without the right level of capacity.

Reply

Jack Marwood

11/10/2016 04:09:12 pm

Mark,
Thanks for your comment. Here are some further thoughts to consider:

>Why do so many schools want to get away from their LA?

Well, many didn’t, but were forced to (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9357455/Failing-primary-schools-to-become-academies-says-Gove.html). Others were bribed to do so, with some secondaries being promised £500,000 a year in additional funds when they converted to academy status (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jun/04/academy-status-incentive-cuts). Others had ambitious head teachers who could see the financial gain they could reap (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/26/sketch-margaret-hodge-academies-public-finances-committee).

But most don’t, which is why a majority of schools (40% of secondaries and 80% of all primaries) have not become academies despite the above. Most schools seem to be pretty well run, by pretty sensible people, who aren’t out to line their own pockets. Many of the acclaimed ‘freedoms’ for academies are available to non-academies, and now that the bribes have ceased, and the DfE is finally clamping down (a bit) on the log-rolling and dubious behaviour of senior people, fewer schools are choosing to convert (which is why the previous government wanted to force them to do so). Of course, many look at Dan Moynihan’s £400,000 salary and wonder if they can get a bit if the action too. But most recognise what the Americans call ‘graft’ when they see it.

>Why would it make any difference to the school or the LA if they converted and became an academy?

See above. The short answer is ‘money’.

>Now the more interesting discussion about MATs. The whole point about MATs, as I see it, is that there is absolutely no standard model for how a MAT can operate.

This is, of course, a perfectly legitimate way to look at MATs. It’s also the most benign view of MATs. Others take a very different view: See this https://disidealist.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/back-on-the-chain-gang, from which this lengthy quote comes:

“So here we are, more than a decade later, and we have academy chains – in every way the descendent of EAZs. What do we see : chains are often inefficient, the “head office” of some are incompetent, and they are reliant on an exponentially growing – and very expensive – bunch of civil servants in DFE and the EFA who are having to try to replicate the previous role of the LEA the schools have been “freed” from. Frequently their relationship with other local schools is very hostile, and the much-trumpeted “sponsorship” of the Chains, rarely seems to involve much in the way of cash transfer from sponsor to schools. Increasingly, many chains seem to be being milked as cash cows by unscrupulous men. Some of these guys are ex-heads who have seen the possibility of lining their pockets. It is also the case that chains attracted the kind ofwell-connected, self-publicizing chancers with fictional CVs who talk a good game. The most common form of this graft is “directors” paying themselves (and their companies) very large salaries to do very little (except posture about how great their leadership is in glowing DFE-promoted articles). But there is also evidence of large amounts of cash from school budgets being directed into companies which have links with chain directors and the business “sponsors”. And of course there are fairly frequent“consultancy fees” being paid to people who are supposedly doing this either (a) as their job, or (b) as a “sponsor”. Again, although this is hard to prove, I get the very clear sense that the department is – at best – trying very hard not to look, in case it sees what is happening. And then there are the results, which it turns out, are also fiction. Some chain schools have improved results. Others have stayed the same. Others have got worse. There is no pattern at all. There is no way that anyone could claim that all this effort, cash and time has resulted directly in a single additional GCSE grade. It is all emperor’s new clothes.”

>The key point as I see it is that every school looking to join a MAT should (a) have the ability to choose which MAT it wants to join

The problem with this is, once again that this assumes the most benign behaviour post-academisation. Once a school joins a MAT it no longer exists as a separate legal entity. Red that it again and take in what it means. Join a MAT, and the school no longer exists as a separate entity MATs can do what they like with schools once they have control of them. See https://disidealist.wordpress.com/2016/10/01/grammars-the-reverse-ferret-begins/#more-1423 and http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/education/new-trust-takes-on-its-first-four-academies-in-south-yorkshire-1-7691951 for examples.

>(b) as a result carry out s

Reply

Jack Marwood

11/10/2016 04:18:00 pm

(Oops - appears comments have a word count)

>(b) as a result carry out sufficient research and due diligence to make sure it chooses the best one for it.

See above. Once it has ‘chosen the right one for it’, it loses all control of its future, as The Hill Primary Academy” – amongst very many others – found to its cost (http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/education/exclusive-academy-chain-says-outstanding-rated-south-yorkshire-primary-is-actually-inadequate-1-7993616).

All of this is a long way from my concern about the original article, which was largely the weird claim that ‘the best teachers’ were choosing to work in London, for MATs. I hope it provides some food for thought.

Jack

Mark Watson

11/10/2016 04:43:38 pm

And there was I thinking we were becoming firm friends ... !

I'm afraid if you're pointing people in the direction of the spittle-flecked finger-jabbing rants of the so called 'Disappointed Idealist' then I'm afraid there is little hope for us. You, at least, have the decency to enter into discussion with me - I've submitted comments on some of his (her?) more hilarious conspiracy-driven theories but presumably because they don't agree with him he simply refuses to post them. That's someone who is really open to discussion.

The lengthy rant from him that you've quoted is a typical example, and I would have hoped that you would have considered it in the context of what I was saying about the new breed of schools-based MATs. Incidentally, I have worked in the past with local authorities, health trusts, police authorities and other public bodies - everything he says in his piece I've seen take place in those public bodies. I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but incompetence and graft aren't limited to the academies sector.

I am not someone who runs a school, but if I was I'd probably take a good deal of exception to your theory that anyone who converted to an academy was either up for taking a bribe or wanted to line their own pockets, whilst those that haven't converted are "pretty sensible people". I appreciate that your personal position is that you don't support academisation, but to disparage all those who disagree with you by claiming they're only in it for their own benefit is a gross misrepresentation and, I would suggest, unworthy of you.

Some genuinely intelligent people who know a lot more about this than I do support your position. Others support the academisation process. I am an interested party who wants to see both sides discuss the debate in a sensible way but arguments like yours above (and those espoused by people like Janet Downs on Schools Week) show an approach more akin to Donald Trump. (And I appreciate you can't get much ruder than that!)

Two points to end with:

1. Yes, at the moment a school is stuck within the MAT it joins unless the RSC decides to rebroker it. However there will be new processes brought in to allow schools and/or the parents to trigger this process if the MAT is not delivering as it should be. This should hopefully end the worry of "once in, always in".

2. Yes, I'm not denying I'm describing an optimistic view of MATs and how the future could be. Why is that so terrible? When did you become so careworn and jaded that all you can see are problems and dark clouds. I look forward to a future where 'bad MATs' are removed from the process (bye bye to Durand Academy Trust thank god) and good MATs can thrive.

Come join me in the optimistic push for a better system. It's so much nicer in the sun ...

Reply

Jack Marwood

11/10/2016 09:22:02 pm

Mark,

I suspect that the reason why people like Disappointed Idealist won't publish comments from you on their blogs is down to the fact that you have a tendency to make things personal for no obvious reason. Ad hominems you have used here and below Jonathan's original article include ‘chippy Guardian journalist’, ‘do try and move on’, ‘Yet another keyboard-warrior…‘, ‘Grow up’ and ‘for months you’ve been able to come onto these pages and spout your nonsense‘.

There's really no need to be rude about the person expressing an opinion or view you don't share. You can't really be surprised if people don't want to debate with anyone who attacks them rather than their argument.

I'll reply to the substantive points in your last comment later.

Jack

Reply

Mark Watson

12/10/2016 02:07:39 pm

So you didn't think when you dismissed Jonathan Booth's opinion as "patronising codswallop" and that his statements were "quite frankly risible" that you were being rude? How about the stunningly generalised and bigoted statement you made that "If you are based in London and you want to work in the north, you have nothing to lose but your metropolitan arrogance"? Because of course everyone from London is arrogant aren't they?

That's why my original comment to you referred to a "chippy Guardian journalist" because I felt the above contributions warranted such a comment. [Although, as I say below I'd rather move on from our difference of opinion on this.]

Next. I have no problem with arguing against the level of Dan Moynihan's salary - indeed if you look at his profile piece on Schools Week you'll see I don't support it. But when Disappointed Idealist feels it appropriate to call him a "greedy, immoral, bastard" I consider that he should not object if someone robustly challenges him in a similar tone.

The comment about "keyboard warrior" and "grow up" was in response to someone who's entire contribution to a serious debate was to say "Everyone knows MATS are hotbeds of cheating. Sorry, I mean very good coursework". I make no apologies for that.

As for Janet Downs, I've grown weary of pointing out all her factual mistakes on the various Schools Week threads without her addressing them. She has many fine points and contributes significantly to some serious discussions but too much of her comments are personal viewpoints disguised as 'facts', selective use of statistics etc. Still, that is not your problem and is covered ad nauseam elsewhere.

Education should be something that is discussed with different opinions put forward with reasoning, and then tested and debated. The problem as I see it is that the Internet and Social Media is dominated by those who object to the Government's policies and who simply slag them off or use the equivalent of the dodgy dossier to try and discredit them.

An example of this is grammar schools. Personally I have my reservations about whether new grammar schools is a good idea, so I'd like to see people discuss the pros and cons rationally so I can make my mind up. But all I see are people ranting about the utter evilness of such an idea. When I've pointed out that there is clearly an issue to discuss here, as the surveys show far more people support grammars than want them abolished, it's explained to me that this isn't really relevant because the public "don't understand the implications". Now that seems really condescending to me, especially when any survey that supports these individuals' positions is not treated in the same way.

Since the rather rocky start to our dialogue on this thread (which I take responsibility for) I have been really happy that we have actually managed to have a proper discussion about the issues. We have differing viewpoints, quite obviously, but you have been prepared to address the points I have made and I hope you agree I have done likewise.

Believe me, when taking a position that might be seen as supportive of Government policy this is a very rare thing!

Reply

Janet Downs

13/10/2016 04:15:42 pm

Janet Downs actually thanked Mark for pointing out one factual error (about Nick Timothy) which she then corrected with apologies.
That said, Janet Downs has 'grown weary' of Mark's sarcastic, patronising, hectoring tone, his strawmen and ad[hominem attacks.
Apart from the time Mark's attack caused her to cry with laughter to such an extent she was unable to type correctly. And as for being like Donald Trump.... sorry, started to laugh again... can no longer type......

Reply

Mark Watson

14/10/2016 09:30:49 am

Nope, can't let this go without challenge.

You wrote an article in which you categorically stated that a specific quote came from Nick Timothy, one of Theresa May's advisers. When you referred to this article on a Schools Week thread I pointed out that was not correct and your response was that it was a:

"Direct quote from the Times 13 August 2016 and attributed to Nick Timothy described by The Times as ‘one of Mrs May’s special advisers, who is thought to be the driving force behind the push…’"

Why did I have to point out again that this was wholly incorrect and a total misrepresentation before you accepted the error?

I've also pointed out other problems with your piece, such as your use of the phrase "The Whitehall statement", your casual replacement of the word "could" with "would" in someone's quote, and only using half of someone's quote without the part that put it in context. All those points made on 20 September and no response or justification from you.

Just in case anyone thinks this is isolated, how about the time you misrepresented what Tim Leunig said (http://schoolsweek.co.uk/top-dfe-advisor-says-consultations-are-never-a-sham/#comment-102484). You don't seem to have corrected yourself there.

I'm sorry if you don't like how I say things. The feeling is mutual. I regret that at times I let my fingers run away on the keyboard but this is an emotive area. I would submit that many people on websites this blog refers to use far worse personal insults that people don't object to, but then people only tend to take offence when it's their views that are insulted. In any case, I do try to do you the courtesy of addressing the points that you make,

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Leave a Reply.

Author

Me?
I work in primary education and have done for ten years. I also have children
in primary school. I love teaching, but I think that school is a thin layer of icing on top of a very big cake, and that the misunderstanding of test scores is killing the love of teaching and learning.